Scientists from the University of Exeter (UK) conducted an experiment showing that the perception of sexualized images of women can be temporarily changed with a weak electric current applied to the forehead. The work was published in the journal Social Neuroscience. This is not about treatment or changing beliefs, but about a laboratory effect that affects basic mechanisms of visual recognition.
Usually, when we look at another person, the brain perceives the face and body as a single whole - this is called holistic (configurational) processing. But when looking at inanimate objects, we more often evaluate individual details. To measure this difference, psychologists use a test with inverted photographs: if a photo of a person is turned upside down, recognizing them becomes noticeably harder. This drop in accuracy is called the inversion effect. For objects, inversion hardly interferes - their parts can be identified in any position.
The study involved 76 right-handed students (54 women and 22 men, average age about 22 years). They were randomly divided into two groups: one received real stimulation, the other a placebo. The method is called transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS). It is a non-invasive procedure: saline-soaked sponges are attached to the scalp, and a very weak current (1.5 milliamps) is passed through them, which can change the excitability of nerve cells. The sensations are no stronger than a slight tingling; this is not electric shock or electroconvulsive therapy.
Immediately after the start of exposure, participants performed a recognition task with 64 color photographs of men and women in black underwear. First they were shown 32 images (some upside down), then for eight minutes they had to distinguish previously seen images from new ones. Recognition accuracy was assessed using a special sensitivity measure that takes into account both hits and false alarms.
In the placebo group, a familiar picture appeared: the inversion effect for women in underwear was more than twice as weak as for men (0.27 versus 0.69). This indicated that women were perceived more as a set of separate parts rather than as a holistic image. In those who received real stimulation, the gap between men and women disappeared: the inversion effect for women rose to 0.87, while for men it remained approximately the same (0.75). At the same time, overall memory accuracy did not differ between groups - the current did not improve memorization in general, but changed specifically the nature of processing.
An additional analysis showed: participants in the active group more correctly recognized specifically upright (non-inverted) photographs of women - 74% versus 67% in the placebo group. Recognition of inverted female images and male images did not differ significantly between groups.
The authors emphasize: this is not proof that stimulation "treats" objectification. They measured only recognition accuracy in the laboratory, not attitudes toward women or behavior in life. In addition, the images included only models in underwear, without comparison with fully clothed people, so the influence of differences in poses or body outlines cannot be ruled out. The inversion effect is an indirect visual marker, not a direct measure of objectifying attitudes. Finally, the sample included more women than men and was not analyzed by participants' sex.
Nevertheless, the researchers conclude: the tendency to perceive sexualized women fragmentarily apparently is not rigidly innate. It may be a learned perceptual habit that in principle can be shifted by influencing perceptual processes. Exactly how this happens remains to be determined.